Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-11

"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> Mon, 24 February 2020 08:36 UTC

Return-Path: <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 798283A08DC for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:36:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HK_NAME_FM_MR_MRS=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GyODgUOUiHQl for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:36:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 125723A08DA for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:36:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id o15so9091398ljg.6 for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:36:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qM6R2xGQdKjTFh4jXjULF0wI0VR7lHqPGhqKaDYAh9c=; b=VN34h46/dwCHQ2eNvL3kfeTXt54G6pWGhpG0wM5QvRaEPOxB/tKtu1zYLEEHQxf3vp +b7webPAUHD6gVUrqF+JnppTFDc6VUwvmYmxoe8YGC+tzG8bObiCLVSdstE09037ojsm 5ZKLOt3Jp8meEI4V+h0k1YqKk0aXjGROyNPKQGV1YCJlv9pXHAubNrkwfbaxciJGZW+y Nhz2RLPMJ+fMDbDNvHXhnZhJOddZP2QttcZ2o15l0lEI+mg0vA36NuxB0Xu8GeRht12x NJBwqPm5Vr5nSaSt9/jV7nobzdiy1t3nWtnu/zzwktapn1Oct8pBV/rMCT1RMirlx8M7 EJUg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qM6R2xGQdKjTFh4jXjULF0wI0VR7lHqPGhqKaDYAh9c=; b=AsEC8FGnWKaYLqU58k+3X3io8+ygt3SxcHPB8kvSD3nd/AVtFunqHlNqPIUSU0wf/F k2AyJ9/nA1tLR8BHytNCuJdp+zTHcdGbCJE66GfBlLlRWPBWkQZz6KJMCIIpkI9AeyLG NB+4Rz5T9OwIt14tYU+1s2720jgmpSkc4ah9fN0SBmWgyVlwXaoW2FbjNO2ffG3wlBl9 BMJB+Qin0Q9jyTbSqoF2dMExPmuyqPd0bfuPIG4vmyeg2skMAAMn12rUaAWZW8PdAN1k KYWzSl1N8Jb5iEfTY1rDMKTFXcVAm1wXIpNeXkrd0EROG/7WdGqCePVOjm8H5TyIchug 2KjA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUoup7aZszUJ6WkCNFiNs1PhMMzOb/Sg3IyCQHTAkJeqe0bElYm CKfkdo9wKaso30YMKX8BWEnbQb6jrlQCKORiQ3Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwiyACu2AP2Sm6BFTZ3ZjrLfVTkG1Qthme5AemsNuNSrvqC3hTVvUyYa12Phw+9UoMEbYkvPaMRGPGM4XUR/z0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:327:: with SMTP id b7mr5253437ljp.22.1582533363895; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:36:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a93e3290-e31f-dbd2-a39c-2895026f59ee@earthlink.net> <CAPK2Dexd=Zo9B3GfoHEvTUGCVyK1X+spVS168ONzWO8tDrp1OQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPK2DexXyT0pdu6Bjptj3AZL8VwsNbK=K1-UGkKyYL+1eQFquQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALypLp8c6kOf1MVP9vvk3-77PVQco_FWkc0cstBzVfdFUEtufg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPK2DexyKTyfZaUR81YFHEWrFREutoXVmsZQ8Q2pCud5Wx_Cww@mail.gmail.com> <CALypLp--W7gGE6-2A90ZBrGvQui0rRQhRF4XRYvQa6Ss0jn2Lg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPK2DezuRL7BggRF5UNC0OnDNEGinRKg8+S4Uh-yHrF-af6BOg@mail.gmail.com> <CALypLp-vTw8Wa=uip0g1gSJswjdNkv7-8iqJGs6mxsYCUkn--A@mail.gmail.com> <CAPK2DeyhPLkNQcDyB4NdFzEcXJO6Et=-BQ3=rx=oKbmXotQ2Pg@mail.gmail.com> <CALypLp9kUxvBqVVZ=dWj4K+uEQketfSd1eeWjGiCBYcM7iJx4w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALypLp9kUxvBqVVZ=dWj4K+uEQketfSd1eeWjGiCBYcM7iJx4w@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:35:51 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPK2Dew=jUhrSMZF4FZAQAu=3guz0DXTZwLi-W_P==7oLE0ztQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>, its <its@ietf.org>, skku-iotlab-members <skku-iotlab-members@googlegroups.com>, =?UTF-8?B?6rmA7Kad7J28IOq4gOuhnOuyjFImROuniOyKpO2EsA==?= <endland@hyundai.com>, =?UTF-8?B?6rmA7KCV7ZiEIO2VmeyDnQ==?= <claw7@naver.com>, "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000001163059f4e43db"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/ba8RVv99P3m0cbVhLIQaIABgSx4>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-11
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 08:36:11 -0000

Hi Carlos,
Thanks for your valuable comments.
I will work on the revision with your comments.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 5:16 PM CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> I've checked version -13, and it has certainly improved compared to -12.
> However, there are still comments that have not been completely addressed.
> Please find below the main ones I still have.
>
> - Page 4 (but also later in different parts of the doc): Mobility Anchor
> (MA): is this term coined somewhere you can reference? It is mentioned as a
> component of a vehicular architecture, but it is not discussed why, not
> even why an IPv6 mobility solution is needed in a vehicular scenario. It
> might seem like straightforward, but you need to present that need. This
> comment still applies. The term MA is not a standard one and the need for
> it is not properly explained.
>
> - The use cases section still does not help much on identifying
> requirements. Vehicular Neighbor Discovery (VND), Vehicular Mobility
> Management (VMM), and Vehicular Security and Privacy (VSP) in vehicular
> networks appear as “new” functions, but what the use cases should reflect
> is the gaps of current IPv6 mechanisms that need to be addressed. We don’t
> need to define new “vehicular-specific” functions, but rather to identify
> the extensions to existing protocols that vehicular scenarios bring.
>
> - Section 4 should introduce a generic vision of what vehicular networks
> architectures might look like, again to help the purpose of identifying
> requirements. Current section is still making quite a lot of assumptions
> about how the architecture looks like without properly justifying them.The
> text now mentions that it is “an exemplary architecture” to support the use
> cases, which might be OK, but I’m afraid it might raise many questions on
> why we don’t try to use existing known architectures and pinpointing where
> there are gaps.
>
> - “For an IPv6 communication between an IP-OBU and an IP-RSU or between
> two neighboring IP-OBUs, network parameters need to be shared among them,
> such as MAC layer and IPv6 layer information.  The MAC layer information
> includes wireless link layer parameters, transmission power level, the MAC
> address of an external network interface for the internetworking with
> another IP-OBU or IP-RSU.  The IPv6 layer information includes the IPv6
> address and network prefix of an external network interface for the
> internetworking with another IP-
> OBU or IP-RSU.” --> I still don’t see a clear justification on the need
> for exchanging prefix information... I'm not judging if this is needed or
> not, just saying that the draft does not really backs that need.
>
> - There are multiple assumptions in the draft about the way IPv6
> addressing will be used (e.g., multiple vehicles sharing a prefix in Figure
> 1, control and data separation, certain network topologies in Figure 2)
> that are not explained. Why those assumptions and not others? Any reference
> supporting them? The document kind of assumes a prefix model that is not
> properly introduced. Issues cannot be derived from the use of a prefix
> model that is not well introduced.
>
> - All the discussion on ND timers is again very much solution specific and
> should be avoided.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carlos
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:49 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
> jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Carlos and Russ,
>> Here is the revision -13 of our IPWAVE PS draft according to Carlos'
>> comments:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-13
>>
>> I attach the revision letter to show how I addressed comments in the
>> revision.
>>
>> If you are satisfied with my revision, please let me know.
>>
>> I will ask five reviewers to review this version for WGLC.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Paul
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 2:06 PM CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <
>> cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> I’ve reviewed the draft. I think the draft is in better shape than last
>>> time I checked, but it is not yet ready. I’m afraid I have quite some
>>> comments. Please see below:
>>>
>>> - I think the title (and the text in many parts of the document) should
>>> be changed to refer to IPv6, instead of IP, as the document (and the WG) is
>>> IPv6 specific. Another example: we should not mention Mobile IPv4 in the
>>> document (as done currently in page 2).
>>>
>>> - Page 4 (but also later in different parts of the doc): Mobility Anchor
>>> (MA): is this term coined somewhere you can reference? It is mentioned as a
>>> component of a vehicular architecture, but it is not discussed why, not
>>> even why an IPv6 mobility solution is needed in a vehicular scenario. It
>>> might seem like straightforward, but you need to present that need.
>>>
>>> - Page 4: the terms OBU and RSU should be aligned with what the basic
>>> OCB draft uses (IP-OBU and IP-RSU) and probably refer to that document.
>>> Besides I understand OBU and RSUs as single IP devices, not set of nodes as
>>> the document currently defines.
>>>
>>> - Page 5: V2I2P and V2I2V deserve additional explanation.
>>>
>>> - The use cases should serve not only to present areas where vehicular
>>> networks can be used, but also to support requirements for IPv6 in such
>>> environments. Current text does not help much on identifying requirements.
>>>
>>> - Section 4 should introduce a generic vision of what vehicular networks
>>> architectures might look like, again to help the purpose of identifying
>>> requirements. I’m afraid current section is making quite a lot of
>>> assumptions about how the architecture looks like without properly
>>> justifying them. Examples are: the presence of a Mobility Anchor, using
>>> Ethernet links to interconnect RSUs or the subnet/prefix model. I think the
>>> proposed architecture might make sense, but it is not THE architecture (if
>>> it was, we should be referring to the doc where it is specified), but an
>>> example of potential architecture. It’d be right to present an exemplary
>>> architecture to support the use cases and problem statement, but the
>>> document should clearly state that.
>>>
>>> - Related to the former, the document assumes that IPv6 mobility is a
>>> key requirement. While I don’t disagree with that, the document should
>>> support that assumption backed up by requirements from use cases.
>>>
>>> - Figure 2: the vision of the RSU having multiple routers, hosts, etc,
>>> inside... where does it come from? It’s new to me. Similarly, on the
>>> vehicle I’d expect Router1 to be an IP-OBU. Related to this comment, first
>>> paragraph of Section 4.2 talks about the RSU architecture without providing
>>> any reference. Why is it needed to have a DNS server internally? I don’t
>>> see why this is needed or specific to vehicular networks.
>>>
>>> - Page 12: all the discussion about the need for exchanging prefix
>>> information comes out of the blue, there is no proper discussion why this
>>> is a requirement. And then the document gets into mentioning an example of
>>> solution for this, which is something that should be avoided (this document
>>> is not about solution space), unless we were analyzing different approaches
>>> to solve a given problem.
>>>
>>> - Page 12: as mentioned above, I don’t see why we need the DNS
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> - Figure 2 makes assumptions on network topology and subnetting that is
>>> not explained.
>>>
>>> - Page 14: the discussion on prevention of false reports of accidents is
>>> application-layer specific, not IPv6 specific, and therefore it is not in
>>> the scope of this document.
>>>
>>> - Section 5.1 is a critical one (actually the whole section 5) and I
>>> think it needs significant work. I’d discuss link model issues before going
>>> into neighbor discovery protocol specific issues. Current text seem to have
>>> already a solution in mind when describing the issues, while what it should
>>> do is derive requirements, and explain why current solutions are not
>>> sufficient. For example, it should not start saying that DAD and ND-related
>>> parameters need to be extended before introducing why current DAD and ND is
>>> not sufficient.
>>>
>>> - All the discussion on ND timers is again very much solution specific
>>> and should be avoided. And the discussion about NHTSA and the collision is
>>> also not appropriate, as one thing is the delay at application layer and a
>>> different thing is the timers used for ND.
>>>
>>> - Page 16 and page 17: the text assumes a prefix model for a vehicular
>>> network that is not properly introduced and justified. Issues cannot be
>>> derived from the use of a prefix model that is not well introduced.
>>>
>>> - Page 18: the discussion about notifying changes on the IP address
>>> should be removed if it is assumed that there is an IPv6 mobility protocol
>>> in place (which seems to be the case) as this is taken care by it.
>>>
>>> - Section 5.1.3: again it goes too much into solution space without
>>> presenting the scenario and the issues. This document is not about talking
>>> solutions.
>>>
>>> - Section 5.2: same comment as before. Solution space specifics should
>>> be removed.
>>>
>>> - Section 6 needs significant work as well. First, I’d like to have some
>>> kind of structure in terms of presenting the security and privacy issues
>>> that are specific to the vehicular environment. And then, we need to have a
>>> list of issues/requirements instead of again going too much into solution
>>> space.
>>>
>>> We can sit together in Singapore to discuss about how to address these
>>> comments.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Carlos
>>>
>>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 08:30, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
>>> jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Carlos,
>>>> Great!
>>>>
>>>> Sure you soon in Singapore.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:08 AM CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <
>>>> cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to do my review first. You'll have it by the Singapore meeting
>>>>> so we can discuss there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 3:29 AM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
>>>>> jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Carlos,
>>>>>> I am wondering what next steps our IPWAVE PS draft will take.
>>>>>> If you are satisfied with my revision, could you do the WG Last Call
>>>>>> on this version?
>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-12
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 1:19 AM CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <
>>>>>> cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the revision. I'll review the document and let you know
>>>>>>> about next steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 12:12 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
>>>>>>> jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Russ and Carlos,
>>>>>>>> I have submitted the revision (-12) of IPWAVE PS draft as you know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-12
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Will you review the revision and move forward to the WGLC or wait
>>>>>>>> for Charlie's another review?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, my SKKU team are working for IETF-106 IPWAVE Hackathon Project
>>>>>>>> to show the data delivery
>>>>>>>> between two 802.11-OCB embedded systems such as the text and
>>>>>>>> web-camera video.
>>>>>>>> We will work to demonstrate the IPv6 over 802.11-OCB.
>>>>>>>> This is a collaboration work with Hyundai Motors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>>>>> From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:57 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for
>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-11
>>>>>>>> To: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
>>>>>>>> Cc: its@ietf.org <its@ietf.org>rg>, Sandra Cespedes <
>>>>>>>> scespedes@ing.uchile.cl>gt;, <skku-iotlab-members@skku.edu>du>, Mr.
>>>>>>>> Jaehoon Paul Jeong <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Charlie,
>>>>>>>> I have addressed your comments below and your editorial changes,
>>>>>>>> submitting the revision:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-12
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, I addressed Sandra's comments about the definition of an RSU
>>>>>>>> as an edge computing system
>>>>>>>> having multiple routers and servers (including DNS server), as
>>>>>>>> shown in Figure 2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I attach the revision letter for your double-checking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your valuable and constructive comments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:08 PM Charlie Perkins <
>>>>>>>> charles.perkins@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello folks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I made a review of the document
>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-11.txt.  Besides editorial
>>>>>>>>> comments, I had some other more substantive comments on the
>>>>>>>>> document, as
>>>>>>>>> follows.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First, I thought that the document should contain an easily
>>>>>>>>> identifiable
>>>>>>>>> problem statement.  Here is some text that I devised for that
>>>>>>>>> purpose,
>>>>>>>>> which could fit naturally at the beginning of Section 5.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     In order to specify protocols using the abovementioned
>>>>>>>>> architecture
>>>>>>>>>     for VANETs, IPv6 core protocols have to be adapted to overcome
>>>>>>>>> certain
>>>>>>>>>     challenging aspects of vehicular networking.  Since the
>>>>>>>>> vehicles are
>>>>>>>>>     likely to be moving at great speed, protocol exchanges need to
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>     completed in a time relatively small compared to the lifetime
>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>     link between a vehicle and an RSU, or between two vehicles.
>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>     has a major impact on IPv6 neighbor discovery. Mobility
>>>>>>>>> management
>>>>>>>>>     is also vulnerable to disconnections that occur before the
>>>>>>>>> completion
>>>>>>>>>     of identify verification and tunnel management.  This is
>>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>>     true given the unreliable nature of wireless communications.
>>>>>>>>> Finally,
>>>>>>>>>     and perhaps most importantly, proper authorization for
>>>>>>>>> vehicular
>>>>>>>>> protocol
>>>>>>>>>     messages must be assured in order to prevent false reports of
>>>>>>>>> accidents
>>>>>>>>>     or other mishaps on the road, which would cause horrific
>>>>>>>>> misery in
>>>>>>>>>     modern urban environments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Although geographic routing is mentioned early in the document, it
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> not discussed in later sections.  This makes me wonder whether the
>>>>>>>>> early
>>>>>>>>> mention is really relevant.  In fact, for fast moving objects, I
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> it is already questionable whether geographic routing has value.
>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>> the RSUs, it is a lot easier to imagine a good use for geographic
>>>>>>>>> routing, or perhaps some other use of geographic information to
>>>>>>>>> establish links between application endpoints.  If geographic
>>>>>>>>> algorithms
>>>>>>>>> are mentioned at all, a lot more development is needed to
>>>>>>>>> establish
>>>>>>>>> relevance to the problem statement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> More description is needed for OCB in the Terminology section. It
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> also be a good idea to include definitions for "context-aware" and
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> platooning.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> class-based safety plan needs a definition and a list of classes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As a general comment, it seems to me that a proposed architecture
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> usually considered to be part of the solution, not the problem
>>>>>>>>> statement.  In the case of this document, the architecture is
>>>>>>>>> really a
>>>>>>>>> depiction of IPv6 as it might be normally considered to live in a
>>>>>>>>> multi-network deployment (e.g., between a lot of cars and RSUs).
>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>> anyway some care has to be taken so that the proposed architecture
>>>>>>>>> doesn't otherwise place strong limits on acceptable solutions.
>>>>>>>>> So, for
>>>>>>>>> example, in section 4.1, it needs to be clear whether or not a
>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>> subnet prefix can span multiple vehicles.  This is an important
>>>>>>>>> choice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In section 5.1.1., a claim is made that a new link model is
>>>>>>>>> required.  I
>>>>>>>>> think this is a very ambitious claim, and I am not even quite sure
>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>> is meant.  IPv6 already provides for "on-link" and "off-link"
>>>>>>>>> variations
>>>>>>>>> on subnet operation.  Unless I am missing something here, the
>>>>>>>>> claim
>>>>>>>>> should be made much more clear (or else retracted).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Similarly, the suggestion that VANETs need to be merging and
>>>>>>>>> partitioning as part of the problem statement seems at least
>>>>>>>>> ambitious
>>>>>>>>> and might present a very high bar that could disqualify otherwise
>>>>>>>>> suitable solutions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be nice to have a citation about why current
>>>>>>>>> implementations of
>>>>>>>>> address pseudonyms are insufficient for the purposes described in
>>>>>>>>> section 5.1.2.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the discussion in section 5.1.3 lives almost
>>>>>>>>> entirely in solution space.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In section 5.1.4, it was not clear to me about why Neighbor
>>>>>>>>> Discovery
>>>>>>>>> really needs to be extended into being a routing protocol.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that section 5.3 really belongs in section 6. Also,
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> a perfectly authorized and legitimate vehicle might be persuaded
>>>>>>>>> somehow
>>>>>>>>> to run malicious applications.  I think that this point is not
>>>>>>>>> sufficiently covered in the current text.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Charlie P.
>>>>>>>>> Blue Sky Networks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> its mailing list
>>>>>>>>> its@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ===========================
>>>>>>>> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>> Associate Professor
>>>>>>>> Department of Software
>>>>>>>> Sungkyunkwan University
>>>>>>>> Office: +82-31-299-4957
>>>>>>>> Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu
>>>>>>>> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
>>>>>>>> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ===========================
>>>>>>>> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>> Associate Professor
>>>>>>>> Department of Software
>>>>>>>> Sungkyunkwan University
>>>>>>>> Office: +82-31-299-4957
>>>>>>>> Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu
>>>>>>>> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
>>>>>>>> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Special Issue "Beyond 5G Evolution":
>>>>>>> https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/special_issues/beyond_5g
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ===========================
>>>>>> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
>>>>>> Associate Professor
>>>>>> Department of Software
>>>>>> Sungkyunkwan University
>>>>>> Office: +82-31-299-4957
>>>>>> Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu
>>>>>> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
>>>>>> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Special Issue "Beyond 5G Evolution":
>>>>> https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/special_issues/beyond_5g
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ===========================
>>>> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
>>>> Associate Professor
>>>> Department of Software
>>>> Sungkyunkwan University
>>>> Office: +82-31-299-4957
>>>> Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu
>>>> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
>>>> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from a mobile device, please excuse any brevity or typing errors.
>>>
>>
>>

-- 
===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
<http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>